delivered the opinion of the Court.
This сase presents the question of an insurance company’s responsibility to reimburse its insured for reasonablе attorney fees and other costs expended by the insured in successfully defending a claim for punitive damagеs.
The case was heard and decided by the trial court upon stipulations of fact and agreed exhibits. Theоdore N. Lerner, et al., partners, trading as Tysons Corner Regional Shopping Center (Tysons), are the owners and оperators of a large commercial development of retail stores and other businesses in Fairfаx County. General Insurance Company of America, trading as Safeco Insurance (Safeco), insured Tysons under a “blanket liability” insurance policy wherein Safeco agreed to pay
“.. .on behalf of the insured all sums which the insured shall become legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury or propеrty damage to which this insurance applies, caused by an occurrence. [Safeco] shall have thе right and duty to defend any suit against the insured seeking damages on account of such bodily injury or property damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or fraudulent, and may make such investigation and sеttlement of any claim or suit as it deems expedient. ...”
This policy was in full force and effect on August 8,1973, when *103 Patriciа Cassidy and her young daughter, Michelle (the Cassidys), were alleged to have suffered damages. By their stipulations, the parties agreed that the event alleged by the Cassidys constituted an “occurrence” as defined in the pоlicy and that the policy contained “no exclusions from coverage for punitive damages or clаims for punitive damages.”
The Cassidys filed suit against Tysons on April 30,1974, seeking to recover compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000 and punitive damages in the amount of $500,000 on account of alleged bodily injury suffered by Michelle Cassidy on August 8,1973. When notified of this suit, Safeco advised Tysons that it would defend only against the claim for compensatory dаmages and that Tysons should secure separate legal representation for the punitive damage сlaim. Safeco further advised Tysons that Safeco “would decline to pay any award for punitive damages.”
The stipulations further tell us “Tysons was obliged to secure separate legal representation to raise all matters of defense to the claims for punitive damages.” At the conclusion of the Cassidys’ evidence аt trial of their action, the court held, as a matter of law, that the evidence was insufficient to support thе claim for punitive damages and dismissed that claim. Tyson’s counsel fees and other expenses in defending the рunitive damages claim reasonably amounted to $4111.00.
On the basis of these facts, the trial court held that Safeco had no duty to defend Tysons against the claim for punitive damages because public policy prohibits insurаnce against indemnity for punitive damages.
We reverse. In doing so, however, we do not reach the public policy question * since decision on that issue, a matter best left to the General Assembly, is unnecessary to our dеcision here.
Under the insurance policy here at issue, Safeco had both “the right and the duty to defend any suit аgainst the insured seeking damages on account of bodily injury or property damage, even if any of the allegations of the suit are groundless, false or
*104
fraudulent.” Under such a provision, an insurer’s obligation to defend is broadеr than its obligation to pay, and arises whenever the complaint alleges facts and circumstances, some of which would, if proved, fall within the risk covered by the policy.
Sturges Mfg. Co.
v.
Utica Mut. Ins.
Co.,
It should be noted, however, that such a provision places no obligation on the insurer to defend an action against the insured when, under the allegations of the complaint, it would not be liable under its contract for any recovery therein had.
Travelers Indem.
Co. v.
Obenshain, Committee,
“While the duty to defend is, in thе first instance, to be determined by the allegations of the notice of motion, yet if those allegations leave it in doubt whether the case alleged is covered by the policy, the refusal of the insurance company to defend is at its own risk; and if it turns out on development of the facts that the case is covered by the pоlicy, the insurance company is necessarily liable for breach of its covenant to defend. . . .”
In the cаse at bar, Safeco concedes that it was obligated to defend against and to pay any comрensatory damages awarded to the Cassidys in their suit. The punitive damages claim, although found groundless by the trial cоurt, was ancillary to the claim for compensatory damages. It necessarily follows that the duty to defend еxtended to the occurrence and both the compensatory and punitive damage claims arising therefrom. In these circumstances, the refusal by Safeco to defend the punitive damages claim constituted а breach of its covenant to defend for which it is liable.
For these reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be reversed and vacated, and judgment will be entered here for Tysons against Safeco for $4111.00, the amount which Tysons reasonably spent in its defense of the punitive damages claim.
Reversed and final judgment.
Notes
The same public policy argument raised here,
i.e.
that public policy prohibits one from insuring against punitive damages, was also raised, but not decided, in
Lipscombe
v.
Security Ins.,